> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
... > Since any criticism of the antiwar movement is > inevitably and immediately called censorship, and we > have a sworn statement that they were doing more than > the protesters claim, more than we've got, actually. > All I've seen is the claim by the protesters that they > were asked to take off their shirts - since I give > them little or no credibility, that isn't going very > far. I guess you didn't read the police report, in which the police officer wrote that he or she asked them to "please cover or remove their shirts" and that "if they complied with my request they will be allowed to stay in the mall and continue to shop as long as they do not cause any more gatherings." They "said no they were going to continue shopping. I advised the Dows that [the mall] is private property and they will be asked to leave." And there's nothing in the "sworn statement" that says that the police or security people observed them bothering shoppers. That is entirely second-hand. And I'm quite sure, unless the police are incompetent, that they would have included such observations in their report. > I'm not predisposed to think that we're plunging > into a police state. Reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is claiming that here. It seems like we don't even agree on what the basic issue is. To me, it's not about the law of trespass. It is about our freedom to express ourselves without authorities, in law enforcement or otherwise, on private or public property, using pretenses to silence us. And that's what I see here, a pretense of these people causing a disturbance. Without a doubt, there are some messages that incite disturbances and it is proper for authorities to prevent opponents from interacting with each other in a way that is likely to lead to violence or significant disturbances. For some reason, the example that comes to mind was the presence of some very vocal Edmonton Oilers fans at a Pittsburgh Penguins hockey game I went to many years ago. The Civic Arena's security people insisted that those fans "keep it down," fearing violence. At that time, the two teams were not on good terms, not at all. In fact, that very game set an NHL record for game delays due to fighting. By the end of the game, the ice had a lot of big red splotches on it -- players' blood from the fights. Where this kind of thing goes astray, IMO, is when the authorities choose sides by blaming one or the other group for causing the trouble that arises when people passionately disagree. When did we forget how to disagree respectfully? I find it disrespectful, indeed, for the mall and police authorities to insist that these guys remove their shirts. But I'd have no problem with them insisting that they not bother shoppers; a mall isn't an appropriate venue for such debates, unless the mall itself is somehow directly involved in the issue. And even then, demonstrations belong on the surrounding streets and sidewalks, the public spaces. > It is not, in fact, okay to > bother people on private property. Jackasses will be > jackasses, Ad hominems have no place here. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
